On: How to Save the Web

[azangru]

I get a feeling of mild confusion after reading this article, because he keeps juggling between the Internet as a technology, the web as the sum total of linkable resources (or maybe the synonym for the Internet; I am not entirely sure), and specific internet companies.

> We need a free and open web for everyone.

Right. But at the same time:

> internet companies must play their part in making sure the web is safe, accessible and protects user data

So, when Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. banned Alex Jones (probably in the spirit of making the web "safe"), how did they advance the cause of "free and open web for everyone"? Why don't deranged conspiracy theorists (who certainly belong into the all-encompassing category of "everyone") deserve free and open web too?

"Free and open for everyone" should also mean no more attacks on Russia for using Facebook or Twitter to influence the opinions of the American public. Because "free and open for everyone" has no concept of national borders. And yet, Tim managed to combine the rhetoric of universal freedom and openness with the rhetoric of state sovereignty, borders, and us-theming ("foreign" interference, etc.)

Also, as pointed out in other comments, the goal of "free and open" internet does not align very well with the purpose of many media companies or content producers in general, who want to be compensated for their work.

I am very much a child of the promise of free and open internet. So when I see articles like this, it confuses the hell out of me.

[0x445442 → azangru]

Adding to the confusion is how someone as bright as Lee thinks more government control and regulations is going to lead to "free and open".

[nine_k → 0x445442]

After WWII, the newly created state of Israel offered Albert Einstein to run for president.

Mr. Einstein, being exceptionally bright, declined the offer, saying something like: "I'm but a physicist, and am not qualified in the areas of statesmanship".

[badrabbit → azangru]

Maybe the disagreement is over what "free and open internet" means. Imo,it does not mean an internet governed by rules that supersede local laws and norms. Free means additional restrictions on lawful self-expression should not be imposed and it also means freedom for site owners and content creators,not just content consumers. It means content providers are free to exclude anyone for any lawful reason. I think you might be confusing free as in freedom from free as in no cost to consumers.

Open means initial access to content should not be for a select group of people but for everyone. It also means content producers have open access to content consumers. Both consumers and producers can restrict access at will(for example content moderation or DNT requests).

For media companies,a free and open internet means a wide reach to consumers. If you meant free as in financial cost,it all depends on their business model. Ad supported is one model,another would be to use the free content as bait that lures consumers to a revenue generating product,be it premium content,premium experience and features or goods.

For the whole "russian trolls" issue,being free and open isn't what allowed the problem. "Russian trolls" can pay for oremium content and find ways to access restricted content and post messages masquerading as allowed users. Imo,user targeted advertising is the problem. "Russian trolls" would not be all that effective if they were not able to target specific groups of people and exploit their biases.

I think content-targeting (see what duckduckgo does) has a strong case against user-targeting. It maybe less profitable but it is stable and most reliable in the long term.

I see a promising future for content being supported by premium users and content targeting and a bleak future for the dystopian corporate surveillance madness.